Hitler's Rise to Evil

Four questions for Peter Sussman, executive producer of the Emmy-nominated mini-series Hitler: the Rise to Evil.

Peter Sussman is CEO of the Entertainment Group for Alliance Atlantis Communications Inc. His credits as executive producer include Joan of Arc, Nuremberg, Life with Judy Garland: Me and My Shadows, the mini-series Haven and the award-winning feature film The Quarrel, based on the celebrated Yiddish short story by Chaim Grade entitled My Quarrel with Hersh Rasseyner.

He is also the executive producer of the recent, controversial mini-series Hitler: The Rise to Evil, which was recently nominated for two Emmy Awards, including best mini-series.

Aish.com: Over the last 10 years, there has been a proliferation of Holocaust films. Do you think these movies cheapen the Holocaust?

Peter Sussman

Sussman: For some people it does. Perhaps to the scholars, to the Elie Wiesels, and certainly to the victims. It's hard to stand in their shoes. No one can imagine what it was like. But I think that the price of "cheapening" it is outweighed by the contribution these films make to education.

When we were doing the Nuremberg mini-series, I was shocked to find out how many people in America still either don't know about the Holocaust, or don't believe in it. It's remarkable. You've got to be living in a bubble.

No one ever answered the question: How did Hitler get there in the first place?

There's a ton of work out there, especially in film, on Hitler, the Nazis, and the incredible stories that came from the Holocaust. But when you think about it, all that body of work, including Schindler's List, The Pianist, and films contributed by our company Atlantis Alliance -- Sunshine, The Quarrel, Haven, Nuremberg -- all that work is post-1938. All these stories flowed from the behavior of Hitler and the Nazis. No one ever answered the question: How did they even get here in the first place?

I saw it as this giant jigsaw puzzle, with a missing piece right in the middle, and this was our chance to contribute that piece. So when my partner Ed Gernon suggested the idea of doing a movie on Hitler, I zeroed in on his rise to power, the period 1889-1934.

Hitler: The Rise to Evil was also different on another front, which was crystallized during a meeting I had with a woman named Sara bloomfield who runs the Holocaust Museum in Washington. She was observing that just about all their methods for educating or presenting the evil of the Holocaust was from the victim's perspective.

What's intriguing about our film, she said, is that you're approaching this from the other side of the wall -- from the perspective of the perpetrators.

As one Jewish scholar said to me when we discussed this very subject: We always run the risk of being "Holocausted out." Every time another film gets made showing the Jews as victims of the Holocaust, unfortunately, a lot of the world says: Okay, we get it! Enough! We know! It was awful! We agree, but don't beat us to death.

This film was another way to expose the world to the evils of the Holocaust.

Aish.com: Your film begins and ends with the quote from Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." Do you believe that Hitler could only have achieved what he did with the complicity of the German people?

Sussman: Complicity, from our research, contributed substantially to his ability to get the power.

Unfortunately there were a great many Germans who did nothing, and by the time they realized that they should have done something, it was too late. We are all probably guilty, on some level, of that kind of behavior. We tend to focus on ourselves more because of the pressures and demands of everyday life. At what point in time should one stand up, or is one guilty for not standing up -- those are complex issues.

Then there were people like Ernst Hanfstaengl (Hitler's foreign press secretary) who represented the significant body of Germans who move more toward the area of actual guilt -- those who really didn't care what Hitler stood for. All he cared about was the fact that he saw a power in Hitler that he wanted to hook his wagon onto. He was out for himself.

His guilt, of course, lies in the fact that he was willing to do exploit the situation for personal gain, even at the expense of having to embrace an anti-Semitic platform. Obviously they were far more guilty than the ones who "did nothing."

There were those who literally did nothing, and there were the Hanfstaengls who had a chance to do something -- more of a chance than others -- and still did nothing.

On the opposite spectrum, you have someone like Fritz Gerlich, the journalist who risked -- and eventually sacrificed -- his life for writing and speaking out against Hitler. He was not the only journalist who wrote and spoke out against Hitler. But, it is surprising to me that someone like Gerlich is not better known.

In fact, three quarters of the information we got on Gerlich, including that the Nazis sent his wife his broken, bloodstained eyeglasses, came from German books that we had translated. That's how little information there is generally known on Gerlich.

When we discovered him, I loved that he wasn't Jewish. I felt that his cause would resonate better with a broader audience by him not being Jewish. Otherwise, you run the risk of people saying, "Yes, of course the Jews are going to speak out."

Aish.com: Did your own views on evil change in the process of making the film?

Sussman: Making the film didn't change my views on the subject, but it did cement them. I believe evil lurks around us all the time, and that it only takes a certain combination of events or people to make it go from danger to dangerous.

I think it's what's not seen or done sometimes that is more dangerous than what is seen or done.

We'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't show that Hitler was human.

In fact, some of the criticism we took on the film in the early stage was, "Don't you run the risk of making Hitler human?" And my answer was, "I hope so."

We'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't show that he was human. He wasn't born with a sign on him saying: "Evil." And he didn't have claws and fanged teeth and breathe fire. He lived and walked among us.

If we think of evil as an aberration, or Hitler as non-human, it's very easy to put it in a little container by itself and push it away. What I think is important is that there are other possible Hitlers out there.

Aish.com: You mentioned that the film initially received a lot of criticism and was perceived as rather controversial. Do you think the criticisms were valid, and how did you handle it?

Sussman: I think it is appropriate for groups and organizations whose mandate is to try and prevent events that would negatively influence their cause. So I was never critical of the communications I received from various Jewish organizations asking me not to make the film, or to be careful. My own personal thought was: Trust us. Don't worry. We know what we're doing. We're experienced. We're as committed as you are to these issues.

I also knew that at the end of the day, the only thing that mattered was the final product. We absorbed the comments, keeping track of all those who had communicated to us. And once I had an assembly of the footage -- not the finished film, but enough to allow someone to get a sense of the tone and the direction of the film -- I met one-by-one with 15 leaders and scholars in the American Jewish community.

They included Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League, Elie Wiesel, and Rabbi Marvin Hier in Los Angeles at the Museum of Tolerance. I am also good friends with Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in New York who I went to first when I had about three quarters of the film. I said, "Joseph, you've got to do me a favor. I need someone who I can trust, and won't run to the press if I've done something wrong here. Watch the film that I have so far, and please let me know whether you think I've lost my mind."

I always believed we were doing the right thing. At the same time, you lie in bed at night, and you say to yourself: "Am I too progressive? Am I too stupid? Am I missing something here? I really don't think we're doing the wrong thing, and yet I've got some pretty hardened views, from people with great knowledge and more experience that I in this arena of anti-Semitism."

Joseph watched the cut of the film and his reaction was: "Staggering. Peter, you have nothing to worry about."

Frankly, I was hoping that of those 15 people that I had sought out or had spoken against us, that I'd have 10 of the 15 supporting the film, or at least saying: "Look, I wish you hadn't made it, but I don't believe it contributes negatively, so I'm neutral."

In the end, across the board, top to bottom, every single one not only had no problem with the film, but almost all of them thought the film made an extremely positive contribution to their causes.

We were committed to being truthful, as best we could within the medium and the timeframe allowed. We thought that whatever messages were appropriate or necessary would result if we did the work properly and truthfully.

We just wanted to tell the story about how Hitler came to power. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said it well. He said the film shows us how fragile democracy is.

Related Articles:

Visitor Comments: 6

(6)
Dermot Mc Dermot,
October 13, 2003 12:00 AM

Some lessons are gladly repeated

Many would say upon seeing this mini series how the world has learned absolutely nothing from that time but I disagree. It’s true that the apathy and greed, which acted as a catalyst to Hitler’s rise to power, are celebrated as virtues today. The film reminds us of the important fact that Hitlers could only rise by democratic means. But in today’s democracies we still see plenty of examples of Reichstag fires, the lesson of eliminating personal freedom to protect it, the importance of patriotic propaganda to appeal to the disenfranchised and uneducated, the lesson of seeing enemies everywhere within the state, well the examples are many. Some democratic leaders of counties who should know better have learned their lessons well.

(5)
bert Hardeman,
October 10, 2003 12:00 AM

a historically true film
most of the Hitler-films is about world war 2.
this is a film about the period between world war 1 and 2.
so we have a pictura how Hitler creates his power.
is it possible to give me more information about this movie.
is it avalaible in the moviecenters?

(4)
Adam Neira,
July 31, 2003 12:00 AM

Prayer, vigilance and right action...

Autonomous thinking human beings who have a frame of reference based on the teachings of Moses, i.e. Don't kill, Don't Abuse Children, Don't Rape, Treat others fairly etc. are less able to be manipulated by others. The lessons of Germany of the 1933 to 1945 period apply to all of human history. Charismatic, seductive predators have littered the shore of human history. Their stock in trade is lies. Prayer, vigilance and right action are the individuals antidotes to the poison of brainwashing and manipulation by others. An autonomous, sovereign populace that is aware of it's rights and responsibilities will be the norm in the messianic era. Purity, freedom and innocence will then reign, not corruption, entrapment and guilt. Moshiach deals in truth.

(3)
sara Kligman,
July 28, 2003 12:00 AM

there are many evils in this world

A remarkable film, as a Jew, you never ask yourself how such a person can get to the point that rules over millions of minds. This film shows the other people who permited that, that other people are more evil than the real evil´s ones.

(2)
Anonymous,
July 27, 2003 12:00 AM

A very worthwhile series

I didn't know why this series was causing controversy, so I watched it with an open mind. I think it was very well done, factual, and a warning to everyone about how evil can take hold. I have previously read 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' and know that the film is accurate. I hope we can all learn from it, and I believe that educationally these films are necessary, the more so as time passes.
And as for people who don't believe the holocaust happened, denial won't help them if this sort of thing happens again.

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...